Arxiv:1704.05815V1 [Physics.Soc-Ph] 19 Apr 2017 Prox

Headphones on the wire Statistical patterns of music listening practices

Thomas Louail1, 2, ∗ and Marc Barthelemy3, 4 1CNRS, UMR 8504 Géographie-cités,13 rue du four, FR-75006 Paris 2Instituto de F´ısica Interdisciplinar y Sistemas Complejos IFISC (CSIC-UIB), Campus UIB, ES-07122 Palma de Mallorca 3Institut de Physique Théorique,CEA, CNRS-URA 2306, FR-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette 4CAMS (CNRS/EHESS) 190-198, avenue de France, FR-75244 Paris Cedex 13 We analyze a dataset providing the complete information on the effective plays of thousands of music listeners during several months. Our analysis confirms a number of properties previously highlighted by research based on interviews and questionnaires, but also uncover new statistical patterns, both at the individual and collective levels. In particular, we show that individuals fol- low common listening rhythms characterized by the same fluctuations, alternating heavy and light listening periods, and can be classified in four groups of similar sizes according to their temporal habits - “early birds”, “working hours listeners”, “evening listeners” and “night owls”. We provide a detailed radioscopy of the listeners’ interplay between repeated listening and discovery of new content. We show that different genres encourage different listening habits, from Classical or Jazz music with a more balanced listening among different songs, to Hip Hop and Dance with a more heterogeneous distribution of plays. Finally, we provide measures of how distant people are from each other in terms of common songs. In particular, we show that the number of songs S a DJ should play to a random audience of size N such that everyone hears at least one song he/she currently listens to, is of the form S ∼ N α where the exponent depends on the music genre and is in the range [0.5, 0.8]. More generally, our results show that the recent access to virtually infinite catalogs of songs does not promote exploration for novelty, but that most users favor repetition of the same songs.

The reasons why human beings like listening to mu- ing the uses of music and their self-declared impor- sic, the variety of emotions music can arouse, its uses tance as relevant classifiers [26, 27]. Statistical physi- and functions in human societies: those are some long cists also contributed by highlighting structural prop- lasting questions which have been discussed by music erties of artists and genres communities that emerge critics and by scientists belonging to a wide range of from the analysis of personal libraries of audio files disciplines. From the early musicology [1] to popular [28]. music studies [2] through sociology of cultural prac- However, relatively little is known about how pre- tices [3], geography [4, 5], music history [6, 7], cul- cisely we listen to recorded music on a daily basis. By tural economics [8, 9], educational and cognitive psy- how we refer here to some kind of detailed, quantified chology [10–13], physiology and neurosciences [14, 15], radioscopy of our contemporary listening practices of an eclectic scientific litterature has illuminated many recorded music, an important aspect of the relation different facets of music listening. At a collective we entertain with music. level, it has been demonstrated several times that Until recently, any empirical research willing to an- statistical relations between inherited social charac- swer to questions pertaining to daily listening prac- teristics of individuals and their musical preferences tices had to rely on surveys and interviews. The exist [3, 16–18]. At the individual level, studies rely- technological and societal evolutions have sustained ing on questionnaires, interviews or experiments con- the development of new mobile devices, online tools ducted in controled environments have documented and listening possibilities, as well as new actors in both the functions attributed to listening and the the music industry. Music-on-demand services have emotions aroused, in various situations of daily life quickly gained in popularity over the last few years, and in different contexts [10, 13, 15, 19]. The influ- and for example, according to a recent report of the ence of the device on the listening practice [20], the French national syndicate of phonographic publishing effects of listening on a number of daily activities – [29], more than three million of French residents (ap- e.g. performance at work [21], driving [22], coping arXiv:1704.05815v1 [physics.soc-ph] 19 Apr 2017 prox. 4% of the total population) were subscribing to and regulating emotions [12, 23] – or the rewarding as- an on-demand streaming music platform in 2016, and pects of music-evoked sadness [24] are other examples roughly 1/3 of the total french population regularly of listening-related research. Classifications of listen- stream audio content. The data recorded by stream- ers have been proposed, with some authors concluding ing platforms offer great possibilities to analyze and about the existence of a direct relation between musi- hopefully better understand individual and collective cal preferences and cognitive styles [25], other stress- listening practices. Whenever an individual plays a song through such a service, with a web browser or dedicated applica- ∗ Correspondence and requests for materials should be ad- tion, online or offline, all known information associ- dressed to TL (email: [email protected]) ated with the stream are logged in the company’s 2 database. For example, when Amélieplays The Roots’ pute for each individual its average t¯i over all days Kool On on her mobile phone, a new entry is added to and we show on Fig. 1b the normalized (ti/t¯i) distri- the database, informing that at 8:23 am on 2/10/2015 butions for the three groups. These normalized dis- she played the song (Kool On) by The Roots, from tributions collapse onto a single curve, indicating that the album Undun. Incidentally, we also know the whatever how much music they listen to, individu- genres tags associated to the song, the stream’s du- als display a common behavior characterized by the ration (and consequently if she listened to the song same fluctuations in listening times, alternating days entirely or not), the information declared during reg- with relatively few music listened and days of heavy istration, including her age and city of residence, and listening. These distribution are peaked and can be possibly some additional contextual information (e.g. fitted by an exponential function, suggesting a Pois- if the song was part of one of Amélie’splaylists, if she son nature of the listening behavior, in contrast with was online or offline when listening to the song, possi- previous results on daily human behavior [30]. bly the city where Améliewas located when listening, We then wonder at what time of the day people etc.). Such a record of information is added to the listen to music. We introduce u(h) which counts database for each single play of the millions of regis- the number of individuals listening to music at time tered users of the service. Once anonymized, users’ h. In order to highlight the collective rhythm we listening history data can be processed and analyzed, R h+1 R 23 plot the normalized values h u(h)/ 0 u(h), where and those digital traces passively produced while lis- 23 R u(h) is the total number of unique individuals that tening consequently constitute an unprecedented em- 0 listened to music during the day (see Supplementary pirical source to study quantitatively contemporary Figure 1). Like other daily activities which have been listening practices. heavily studied from individual traces [31, 32] the ag- In the following we analyze the listening history gregated curves of activity display two characteristic data of one of the major streaming platforms. The patterns, one for weekdays and another for weekends. data correspond to the entire listening history of about However not everyone listens to music at the same five thousands users during one hundred days (see Ma- hours, and for each listener i we calculate his/her pro- terial for details). We note that for some of these portion ph of plays that occurred between h and h+1, people the music streamed may represent only a lim- i averaged over the 100 days period. We then construct ited subset of all the recorded music they listened to the 24-values vector (p0, . . . , p23) and using these time during that period, and their data might not be rep- i i profiles we cluster the listeners, and find four typical resentative of their entire listening practice [20]. In groups whose average profiles are shown in Fig. 1c order to control this bias we selected a set of anony- (see the Appendix for details on the clustering). These mous users among those who displayed a frequent use time profiles are very specific: in one group individuals of the service (see Appendix). For these listeners we listen to music mostly in the morning (“Early birds”); can reasonably assume that the streaming platform, in another we observe two listening peaks, one in the if not exclusive, constitutes a daily source of music. morning and the other in the afternoon (“Working hours listeners”); there are also individuals listening RESULTS to music mostly at the end of the day (“Evening listeners”); and finally those whose listening peak is late in the evening and during the night (“Night owls”). Rhythms

We start by quantifying the relation that individuals have with music listening as a daily activity, and Diﬀerence and repetition the rhythms and typical hours at which they perform this activity. For all individuals, we compute the total We now investigate how individuals are distributed time they spent listening during the 100 days period along various dimensions of music listening. We de- under study. Fig. 1a represents the cumulative distri- note by Pi, Si, and Ai the total numbers of plays, bution of the average daily listening time t¯ computed unique songs and unique artists listened by individ- over all individuals and all days. This quantity varies ual i during the 100 days period, respectively. We theoretically from 0 to 1440 (number of minutes in a show on Fig. 2a the distribution p(P/P¯), p(S/S¯) and day) and the empirical measure reveals a range from p(A/A¯) of the normalized variables (where the aver- 4 to 1200 minutes per day, a median value of approx- age values are computed over all individuals and the imately 80 minutes, and about 75% of individuals lis- whole 100 days period). These distributions collapse tening more that one hour per day (and 25% listening on a curve that can be ﬁtted by a log-normal distri- more than 2 hours per day). In order to understand bution of parameters µ ≈ 3.9 and σ ≈ 1.1. It is here how listeners behave over periods of several months, another occurrence of the lognormal distribution in we extract the distribution of the daily listening times social dynamics, although its origin here is not clear ti for all individuals (the index i refers to the individ- and would deserve further investigation. Also, while ual) and for the whole period, splitting listeners into we can understand a priori that P and S display the three groups according to their total listening time same behavior, it is more surprising that the distri- (“light”, “medium” and “heavy” listeners). We com- bution of the number of unique artists listened also 3

a 1.00 b 100

10−1 0.75 10−2

2 −3 0.50 10− 10 CDF PDF 10−3 10−4 10−4 all 0.25 Light 10−5 10−5 Medium 101 102 103 Heavy 6 0.00 10−

10 60 80 120 1200 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 t (minutes) ti ti "Early birds" "Working hours listeners" "Evening listeners" "Night owls" c 17% 30% 34% 20%

0.09 ) t ( p day

⌠ ⌡ 0.06 ) t ( p

t + 1 0.03 t ⌠ ⌡

0.00

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 Hour

FIG. 1. Music listening rhythms. (A) Cumulative distribution of the average daily listening time t¯ (in minutes) computed over all listeners and all day. The y-value of each point gives the fraction of users that listened at most t¯minutes of music each day on average, during the 100 days period under study – inset: corresponding probability distribution. (B) The normalized distributions of daily listening times (ti/t¯i) for three different groups of listeners: heavy listeners (more than 2 hours per day on average, blue triangles), medium (between 1 and 2 hours, green diamonds), and light (less than 1 hour per day, orange squares).(C) Average profiles of different groups of listeners obtained by clustering on their listening temporal habits.

collapses on the same curve. ponent ≈ 3.0 (the distributions p(Pi(α)) are shown In order to understand how individuals distribute in the inset). The fluctuations around the average their plays among the songs they listen to, we com- value P/S are therefore the same whatever the group: pute the aggregated distributions p(Pi(α)) which con- no matter how much music people listen to, they dis- tain the numbers of plays per song α for each listener tribute similarly their attention on the different songs P i (we then have α Pi(α) = Pi) for the three groups listened. Patterns of Fig. 2a and b might result from defined above – heavy, medium and light listeners, a simple relation between P , S and A common to all according to their total number of plays. We rep- listeners and that would allow to make predictions for resent in Fig. 2b these distributions p(Pi(α)/Pi(α)) any of these variables knowing the value of another. (with Pi(α) = Pi/Si) which also collapse on a curve As shown on Supplementary Figure 4, there are how- whose tail can be fitted by a power law with an ex- ever no clear relations among these variables and we 4 observe large fluctuations from one person to another. Music genres and listening habits

We now focus on the quantity Si/Pi which can be Each song is indexed with one or several genre tags. seen as the exploration rate of individual i among the While there are hundreds of unique tags in such songs catalog. By definition this ratio varies between 0 – databases, most of them are associated to a very small the extreme case of an individual that would listen to proportion of songs only, and concern an even smaller one and only song again and again – and 1 – a pure proportion of plays. The distribution of the listen- explorer that would never listen a song twice. The ers’ plays per genre shows us first that over a period binned scatterplot of Fig. 2c shows that there is no of several months, most individuals listen to songs of clear relation betweeen the weight of exploration S/P very different genres (see the histogram of the num- and the total time spent listening to music (charac- ber of genres listened at least once on Supplementary terized by P ). We also see that the average value of Figure 8). This first impression of broad eclecticism is S/P is around 1/3, indicating that the average num- challenged by a closer look at the individuals’ distri- ber of plays per song is ≈ 3. We observe a trend butions of plays among genres. For each individual i (despite large fluctuations) between the average rate we compute the Gini normalized coefficient (see Sup- Si/Pi and the listeners’ age (shown in Fig. 2d; errors plementary Methods in Appendix) of his/her distribu- bars correspond to one standard deviation), indicating tion p(Pg(i)) of plays in each music genre g, and plot a decrease of repetition and an increase of exploration on Supplementary Figure 9A the distribution of this with age (see also [33]). Gini coefficient among listeners. We first observe that there are no listeners displaying small Gini values. On Streaming audio is a different experience than lis- the contrary, most individuals have large Gini values, tening to the radio or browsing in a personnal col- indicating that even eclectic individuals who listen to lection of records or audio files. Several modes are many different genres tend to strongly favor a subset offered to users: they can search and play songs one of them. From the value of the Gini coefficient we ex- after another, listen to an entire album or listen to a tract a typical number of dominant genres among the playlist previously compiled by themselves, someone listener’s plays (see Supplementary Methods in Ap- else or automatically generated (the latter gaining in pendix). It appears that most individuals have 2 or importance thanks to increasingly sophisticated rec- 3 genres that they clearly favor (cf. Supplementary ommendation systems [34]). Vinyle records favor a se- Figure 9B and C). This observation naturally leads quential listening from the first to the last track, CDs us to determine the couples of genres which often go allowed direct access to any song of the record but together. We then determine for each listener his/her still contain albums which are “meant to” be played two most listened genres, and estimate the probability entirely. Streaming platforms offer listeners an imme- P (g2|g1) to have g2 as second favorite genre when g1 is diate access to any song. The possibility to pick songs the favorite one. These probabilities are represented among a practically infinite catalog suggests the naive on Supplementary Figure 10. Beyond the leading role assumption that we should observe a high versatility of Pop music on streaming platforms, we recognize in plays, and listening sessions mixing album-centered classic proximities, such as Metal-Rock, the Hip Hop habits with handmade sequences of songs (in playlists family or the Classical-Jazz tandem. We also observed or not). In order to check this hypothesis we first that the temporal patterns of the music genres do not compute for each listener the percentage of albums strongly differ from each other (see Supplementary listened entirely (while not necessarily in sequential Figure 11) [35]. Similarly, we could not distinguish order), and plot the distribution of this percentage groups of artists that are preferentially listen to at among the population of listeners on Supplementary certain hours [36]. Figure 5. More than 50% of users played in their en- We now focus on 9 broad genres (Classical music, tirety less than 5% of the albums. We then compute Jazz, Rock, Metal/Hard Rock, Reggae, Electro, Pop, the distribution of the number of songs played per al- Hip Hop, and Dance) to see if this classic, “record bum, and compare it to the distribution of the number store alleys” classification allows to discern various of songs per album. If listeners had album-centered listening habits. Considering how recorded music is practices, then both distributions should match. The produced and distributed, some music genres favor results shown on Fig. 2e tell a different story. The dis- the emergence of “hits” and are more “inegalitarian” tribution of the number of songs per album in the cat- than others when it comes to the repartition of the alog (blue curve) has several small peaks around typi- crowd’s attention towards songs (see Supplementary cal values that correspond to different types of records: Figure 12). The heterogeneity of the number of plays 1 (singles), 10–12 (the typical number of songs on al- in each genre is represented by a “violin plot” shown bums), and then 20/30/40 (likely corresponding to in Fig. 3. Each genre is represented by a violin, which double/triple albums and compilations/anthologies). gives vertically and symetrically the smoothed dis- In contrast we observe a very different distribution tribution (kernel density estimation) of the listeners’ (red curve) when we consider the number of songs Gini coefficient for songs in that genre. The Gini co- played per album, that displays a regular decay with efficient of a given individual for a given genre en- a smaller peak around 10, corresponding to the re- codes the inequality of his/her distribution of plays mainder of album-centered listening practices. among the songs of this particular genre. The violins 5

0 0 All 1.00 %listeners 10 A A 10 Light 1.00 a b −1 c S S 10 Medium 1 0.75 10− P P 10−2 Heavy 0.75 0.50 10−3 2 0.25 10− 10−4 0.50 PDF S/P 10−5 0.00 −3 −6 10 10 0.25 10−7 4 10− 10−8 0.00 −1 0 1 −1 0 1 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 Pi Pi P −0 d e 10 in catalog 0.6 played 10−1 0.5 10−2 0.4 S/P −3 Density 10 0.3 −4 0.2 10 10−5 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Age of listeners Number of songs per album

FIG. 2. Dimensions of contemporary listening practices. (A) Histogram of the total numbers of plays (P ), songs (S) and artists (A) listened among users during the 100 days period. (B) Normalized distributions of plays per song P/P¯ for three groups of listeners (light, medium and heavy – according to their total number of plays). Inset: distribution p(Pi(α)) for the three groups of listeners. (C) Binned scatterplot of the listeners’ exploratory ratio S/P vs. their total number of plays P . (D) Exploratory ratio S/P vs. listeners’age. For each age, the error bars correspond to a standard deviation. (E) Histograms of the number of songs per album in the music catalog available to listeners (blue curve) and of the number of songs played per album listened (red curve). are shown from left to right according to the aver- Playing music at a party age value of the individuals’ Gini coefficients. These violins show that the Gini coefficient is usually dis- Finally, we provide measures about the “distance” tributed over the whole range [0, 1], indicating that between individuals in terms of the music they lis- for most genres there is a strong heterogeneity of listen to. The size of the online music library is prac- tening practices. We however observe that individu- tically infinite which implies that individuals’ plays als, when they listen to the most popular genres (Pop, would have a very small overlap if random. Musical Hip Hop or Dance), are more homogeneous and seem choices however depend on many things, are strongly more focused on a subset of songs. In contrast, in influenced by social factors [3] and we could expect a other genres we observe a greater variety of listen- larger value of the overlap than the one obtained by ing practices (for example for Jazz or Classical). We chance. We first estimate from the dataset the prob- then group listeners according to their favorite genre: ability that two randomly selected individuals share Rock, Rap, Jazz, etc. We calculate the average age a given number of songs. Fig. 4a shows the proba- of the people in each group, along with the average bilities p = P rob(s ≥ S, δt) that they shared at least exploration rates S/P inside and outside the favorite S songs during a period δt varying between one hour genre (shown on the Supplementary Figure 13). We and one month. This probability obviously increases note that in all groups the exploration rate is larger as one considers longer time periods, and the proba- outside the favorite genre than inside, an indication bility p(S ≥ 1, δt = 30 days) that two people have that for most individuals what contributes to make a listened at least one common song in 30 consecutive genre their favorite is the repetitive listening of a small days is large p ≥ 0.7 (p ≥ 0.9 for a 100 days period). number songs of that genre. We also note substantial The four curves on Fig. 4a are very similar and display differences in terms of the average age of listeners in a cut-off value of ≈ 10 − 15 songs. the different groups, an expected observation in agree- ment with previous work [9, 33, 37]. A related problem is to determine the minimum number of songs that a DJ should play to an audience 6

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25 of plays among songs of a given genre among songs of a given of plays

0.00 Gini normalized coefficient of the listeners' distribution Classical Jazz Rock Metal/HardRock Reggae Electro Pop Hip Hop Dance

FIG. 3. Inequality of music genres. Each violin is a vertical and symetric representation of the smoothed distribution (kernel density estimation) of its listeners’ Gini coefficient of plays per song, for each genre. Each violin shows to what extent individuals have an heterogeneous attention towards the songs they listen to, when they listen to that genre. so that everyone hears at least one song that he/she with 0.47 ≤ α ≤ 0.8 (R2 > 0.99), showing that spe- recently listened to. This problem is well-known by cialized audiences are easier to “satisfy”. non-professional DJs who have to deal with people harassing them to play specific songs at parties. This minimum number of songs S obviously depends of the DISCUSSION size N of the audience, and we call the function that relates S to N the DJ function. In order to evaluate Streaming platforms contribute to increase possi- empirically this function, we randomly sample differ- bilities of access to recorded music, and might possi- ent sets of listeners of increasing size N, and for each bly change the listening habits of their users. These set we determine the smallest number of songs S that can experience legal and unlimited access to a gigantic allow to satisfy them all (in other words, S is the size catalogue containing more years of unique music than of the minimum 1-mode vertex cover in the bipartite what one could listen to in an entire life. Our results subgraph connecting the individuals sampled and the challenge a number of na¨ıve assumptions about the songs they listened). When plotting this number√ S contemporary forms of an old and widespread cultural vs. N, we observe a behavior of the form S ∼ N, as practice. Considering the available catalog, one could shown by the black curve on Fig. 4b. We repeat the think that it would encourage listeners to continuously same calculation by focusing on specific music genres search for novelty, and browse in many genres, artists to cover the case of “specialized” DJs. We select songs and albums. Our results on the weight of repetition (and their listeners) of a given genre only, allowing us and the small number of dominant genres per listener to evaluate a DJ function per genre. Each of them has indicate that it is currently not the case. This obser- the same general form S ∼ N α, with 0.64 ≤ α ≤ 0.8 vation takes place in the context of discussions about (R2 > 0.99). These exponents give a lower bound to the psychological function of repetition when listen- the size of the setlist that one has to play if she/he ing to music. These considerations are however be- wants to “satisfy” everybody in a random crowd full yond the scope of this article, and we refer the read- of strangers. In particular, if the venue is big and ers to more specific work relying either on detailed the audience large (≥ 104 individuals), the required interviews with listeners [10, 38], self-reports [26] or number of songs will be too large to be played dur- neuroimaging [14]. We remind however that “talk is ing a single event, making the challenge impossible cheap” [39], and our observations that (i) heavy and whatever the DJ. In reality, the crowd attending to a light listening days identically alternate whatever the gig is not random and gather individuals with similar perceived importance of music in the listeners’ daily taste. We then reproduce the same experiment but lives, and (ii) that the weight of repetition is indepen- this time by considering specialized audiences, com- dent of the amount of music listened, challenge previ- posed of people whose favorite genre is the one played ous results based on questionnaires and interviews. by the DJ. As expected we obtain smaller exponents, It would be wise nonetheless not to generalize too hastily our results to music listening practices in gen- 7

100 1000 ahour b Audience random 10−1 day specialized week −2 10 month 100 DJ mix Jazz −3 10 Electro

S Hip Hop −4 10 All Prob(s >= S)

−5 10 10

10−6

10−7 1 1 10 100 10 100 1000 S: Number of songs in common N

FIG. 4. Organizing a party. (A) Estimated probabilities that two randomly chosen individuals listened at least to S common songs, for different periods of time. (B) DJs’ functions capturing the relation between the size N of an audience and the minimal number of songs S one should play so that everybody in the room hears at least one song that he/she recently listened to. Colours correspond to DJs playing specific music genres, while shape of points correspond to random or specialized audiences. eral, whatever the listening device. The availability of sis of listening practices, e.g [42]). However, “digital pre-existing playlists and the automated generation footprints” alone do not give researchers clues about of playlists fitted to the users’ taste might encourage the individuals’ intentions explaining their behavior a less involved listening process, resulting in distinct and choices. More generally, these traces poorly in- statistical properties between “active” and “passive” form about the context of use, suffer several uncon- listeners. For example, the authors of [40] concluded trolled bias, and might lead to misinterpretating the that those who declare listening more music are also results [43] (e.g. was the user really listening – or even more involved in the choice of the music they listen in the room – when the song was played?). Conse- to. The data we analyzed include no contextual infor- quently any “blind” analysis of logs alone is doomed mation that let us know if the songs listened were vol- to be limited in scope, and in some cases may lead untarily played after a proper search, or if they were to wrong conclusions (e.g. see [44] for a discussion recommended and queued by the service itself. We of the case of individual human trajectories recon- should also mention that there is so far a limited pro- structed from unconventional data sources). While portion of individuals who use streaming platforms as an increasing part of daily human activities produce their main source of recorded music, but this propor- electronic traces, designing information collection pro- tion is constantly increasing [29]. We have restricted tocols which articulate the strengths of both traditions our analysis to listeners whose activity suggests that (detailed surveys and interviews in one hand and digi- they favor streaming. But considering that these may tal footprints in the other) is a contemporary challenge not representative of the entire population (in terms faced by social research. of social and demographic criteria), our results need to be confirmed with richer datasets providing more contextual information. MATERIAL AND METHODS The collection of individual data by companies raises privacy issues and legitimate concerns about Dataset surveillance. For obvious reasons these companies are reluctant to share the raw data they collect, even af- The dataset analyzed contains the raw streaming ter proper anonymisation. This policy partly explains data of 10,000 anonymous and registered users of a why very few results obtained from such data have major streaming platform. They inform us on their been published so far in the scientific literature. Ques- entire listening history during the 6-months period tions similar to those we addressed are nonetheless spanning from June 1st 2013 till December 1st 2013. studied internally in a product-oriented research (see These users were randomly selected among all the reg- for example Spotify Insights [41] or Music Machinery,, istered French users of the service. We know noth- collections of blog posts discussing data-driven analy- ing about how important is the streaming service for 8 these users, who might also heavily rely on other mu- XD = a and Xi>D = 1. We then have sic sources and devices (their own personal library of Da + (K − D) records or audio files, the radio, etc.), and might have X = (3) distinct practices depending on the source and device K [10, 20, 38]. In order to mitigate this bias, we chose We also obtain to focus on users who made a frequent use of their ac- X count. We selected a set of 4,615 anonymised French |Xp − Xq| = 2D(K − D)(a − 1) (4) users who actively listened to music (at least every p,q other day in average) during a 100 days period, from and the Gini coefficient is then 2013/8/15 to 2013/11/23. For these individuals we 1 2D(K − D)(a − 1) can reasonably make the hypothesis that streaming, G (X) = (5) K,D 2K2 Da+(K−D) if not their unique, was one of their main music source K during this period (see the Appendix for details on the K − D D(a − 1) = (6) cleaning and filtering of the data). K Da + K − D In the limit where a 1 we then obtain the maximum Normalized Gini coefficient and extraction of the value number of dominant terms K − D G∗ = (7) K,D K We assume that we have K classes and in each class, we have a random number Xi. The Gini coefficient can then be computed as follows Extracting the number of dominant terms

1 X G (X) = |X − X | (1) For a given observation of the Gini coefficient for K 2 p q {X}, we can ask what is the equivalent configuration 2K X p,q with Deff dominant terms ? In other words, if we This coefficient is a priori in the interval [0, 1] but measure G, this value is bounded we will see that for finite K the maximum value is K − D K − D + 1 < G < (8) actually different from 1 and depends on K. K K where the number of effective dominant terms is given Case K and D = 1 by

Deﬀ = E[K(1 − G)] (9) We denote by D the number of dominant terms. If D = 1 we have only one dominant term that we call where E[x] denotes the nearest (lower) integer of x. X1 = a and all the other terms are much smaller than a and for simplicity – without any loss of generality – Data availability we take them Xi6=1 = 1. The Gini coeﬃcient is then

1 (a − 1)(K − 1) The raw data that support the findings of this study G (a) = K K2 a+K−1 were provided by a third-party company. Restrictions K apply to the availability of these data, which were used K − 1 a − 1 = under license for the current study, and are not pub- K a − 1 + K licly available. Derived, aggregated data supporting In the limit a K where the heterogeneity is maxi- the findings presented in this article are however avail- mal and the Gini coefficient maximum, we then obtain able from the corresponding author upon request. K − 1 G∗ = (2) K K ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ∗ We see on this formula that G can actually be much The authors thank A. Sinton and A. Héraultfor smaller than 1 if K is not too large. In the case of supporting the research, and A. Sinton for his help a small K we thus have to compute the normalized when processing the data. T.L. thanks G. Ramelet, ∗ Gini coefficient G/GK which is in the interval [0, 1] P. Chapron, Y. Renisio, A. Beaumont, R. Gallotti, and reaches 1 for the most heterogeneous distribution. R. Louf, J.-L. Giavitto, F. Lamanna, W. Nowak, N. Vallet and L. P. Vallet for inspiring discussions on the analysis of listening practices. TL gives another high General K and D case five to G. Ramelet and L. Nahassia for their feedback on an early version of the manuscript. Final thanks go We assume here that we have D dominant terms to C.A. Burnett, T. Caruana, M.D. McCready, J.N. and for simplicity we assume that X1 = X2 = ··· = Osterberg, A.L. Peebles and D. Robitaille. 9

[1] Theodor W. Adorno. On the Fetish-Character in Mu- view and a Questionnaire Study of Everyday Listen- sic and the Regression of Listening. Zeitschrift für ing. Journal of New Music Research, 33(3):217–238, Sozialforschung, 7, 1938. September 2004. [2] Philippe Le Guern and Hugh Dauncey, editors. [20] Amanda E. Krause, Adrian C. North, and Lauren Y. Stereo: Comparative Perspectives on the Sociological Hewitt. Music-listening in everyday life: Devices and Study of Popular Music in France and Britain. Rout- choice. Psychology of Music, August 2013. ledge, Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT, [21] Teresa Lesiuk. The effect of music listening on work December 2010. performance. Psychology of Music, 33(2):173–191, [3] Pierre Bourdieu. Distinction: A Social Critique of the January 2005. Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, 1984. [22] Nicola Dibben and Victoria J. Williamson. An ex- [4] George Carney. Music Geography. Journal of Cultural ploratory survey of in-vehicle music listening. Psy- Geography, 18(1):1–10, September 1998. chology of Music, 35(4):571–589, January 2007. [5] Conrad Lee and Padraig Cunningham. The Ge- [23] Suvi Saarikallio. Music as emotional self-regulation ographic Flow of Music. In Proceedings of the throughout adulthood. Psychology of Music, 2012 International Conference on Advances in So- 39(3):307–327, October 2010. cial Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2012), [24] Liila Taruffi and Stefan Koelsch. The Paradox of ASONAM ’12, pages 691–695, Washington, DC, USA, Music-Evoked Sadness: An Online Survey. PLOS 2012. IEEE Computer Society. ONE, 9(10):e110490, October 2014. [6] Nik Cohn. Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom: The [25] David M. Greenberg, Simon Baron-Cohen, David J. Golden Age of Rock. Grove Press, New York, 1972. Stillwell, Michal Kosinski, and Peter J. Rentfrow. [7] Peter Guralnick. Sweet Soul Music: Rhythm And Musical Preferences are Linked to Cognitive Styles. Blues And The Southern Dream Of Freedom. Canon- PLOS ONE, 10(7):e0131151, July 2015. gate Books, 1986. [26] Tom F. M. Ter Bogt, Juul Mulder, Quinten A. W. [8] Raymond AK Cox, James M. Felton, and Kee H. Raaijmakers, and Saoirse Nic Gabhainn. Moved by Chung. The concentration of commercial success in music: A typology of music listeners. Psychology of popular music: An analysis of the distribution of gold Music, 39(2):147–163, January 2011. records. Journal of cultural economics, 19(4):333–340, [27] Thomas Schäfer.The Goals and Effects of Music Lis- 1995. tening and Their Relationship to the Strength of Mu- [9] Juan Prieto-Rodr´ıguezand V´ıctorFernández-Blanco. sic Preference. PLOS ONE, 11(3):e0151634, March Are Popular and Classical Music Listeners the Same 2016. People? Journal of Cultural Economics, 24(2):147– [28] R. Lambiotte and M. Ausloos. Uncovering collective 164, May 2000. listening habits and music genres in bipartite net- [10] J. A. Sloboda. Everyday Uses of Music Listening: A works. Physical Review E, 72(6):066107, December Preliminary Study. In S.W. Yi, editor, Music, Mind 2005. & Science, pages 354–369. Seoul National University [29] Patricia Sarran. Baromètre musicusages (annual Press, 1999. report on contemporary listening practices). Syndicat [11] Adrian C. North, David J. Hargreaves, and Susan A. National de l’éditionPhonographique, 2016. available O’Neill. The importance of music to adolescents. online at http://www.snepmusique.com/actualites- British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2):255– du-snep/barometre-musicusages-le-premier-tableau- 272, June 2000. de-bord-de-la-consommation-de-musique-en-ligne/. [12] Dave Miranda and Michel Claes. Music listening, [30] Albert-László Barabási. The origin of bursts coping, peer affiliation and depression in adolescence. and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature, Psychology of Music, 37(2):215–233, January 2009. 435(7039):207–211, 2005. [13] Susan Hallam, Ian Cross, and Michael Thaut. Ox- [31] Maxime Lenormand, Miguel Picornell, Oliva Gar- ford Handbook of Music Psychology. Oxford Univer- cia Cantú-Ros, Antònia Tugores, Thomas Louail, sity Press, May 2011. Ricardo Herranz, Marc Barthelemy, Enrique Fr´ıas- [14] Daniel J. Levitin. This Is Your Brain on Music: The Mart´ınez,and JoséJ. Ramasco. Cross-Checking Dif- Science of a Human Obsession. Dutton, 2006. ferent Sources of Mobility Information. PLoS ONE, [15] Valorie N. Salimpoor, Mitchel Benovoy, Gregory 9(8):e105184, August 2014. Longo, Jeremy R. Cooperstock, and Robert J. Za- [32] Maxime Lenormand, Thomas Louail, Oliva Gar- torre. The Rewarding Aspects of Music Listening Are cia CantúRos, Miguel Picornell, Ricardo Herranz, Related to Degree of Emotional Arousal. PLOS ONE, Juan Murillo Arias, Marc Barthelemy, Maxi San 4(10):e7487, October 2009. Miguel, and JoséJ. Ramasco. Influence of sociode- [16] Nick Prior. Critique and Renewal in the Sociology mographics on human mobility. Scientific Reports, of Music: Bourdieu and Beyond. Cultural Sociology, 5:10075, May 2015. 5(1):121–138, January 2011. [33] Paul Lamere. Exploring age-specific prefer- [17] Bethany Bryson. ”Anything But Heavy Metal”: Sym- ences in listening. Music Machinery blog post. bolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes. American Soci- https://musicmachinery.com/2014/02/13/age- ological Review, 61(5):884–899, 1996. specific-listening/ [18] Koen van Eijck. Social Differentiation in Musi- [34] Geoffray Bonnin and Dietmar Jannach. Automated cal Taste Patterns. Social Forces, 79(3):1163–1185, Generation of Music Playlists: Survey and Ex- March 2001. periments. ACM Comput. Surv., 47(2):26:1–26:35, [19] Patrik N. Juslin and Petri Laukka. Expression, Per- November 2014. ception, and Induction of Musical Emotions: A Re- 10

[35] M. Jagger and K. Richards. You can’t always get [40] Alinka E. Greasley and Alexandra Lamont. Explor- what you want. In Let It Bleed. Decca, 1969. ing engagement with music in everyday life using ex- [36] F. Sinatra. In the Wee Small Hours. Capitol, 1955. perience sampling methodology. Musicae Scientiae, [37] Albert LeBlanc, Young Chang Jin, Lelouda Stamou, 15(1):45–71, March 2011. and Jan McCrary. Eﬀect of Age, Country, and Gen- [41] Spotify Insights. https://insights.spotify.com der on Music Listening Preferences. Bulletin of the [42] Paul Lamere. The Skip. Music Machinery blog post, Council for Research in Music Education, (141):72– https://musicmachinery.com/2014/05/02/the-skip/ 76, 1999. [43] Kevin Lewis. Three fallacies of digital footprints. [38] Mohsen Kamalzadeh, Dominikus Baur, and Torsten Big Data & Society, 2(2):2053951715602496, Decem- M¨oller. Listen or interact? A Large-scale survey on ber 2015. music listening and management behaviours. Journal [44] Riccardo Gallotti, Armando Bazzani, Sandro Ram- of New Music Research, 45(1):42–67, January 2016. baldi, and Marc Barthelemy. A stochastic model of [39] Colin Jerolmack and Shamus Khan. Talk is cheap randomly accelerated walkers for human mobility. Na- ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological ture Communications, 7:12600, August 2016. Methods & Research, 43(2):178–209, 2014. 11

APPENDIX Supplementary Methods

Clustering listeners according to their daily streaming rhythms Data pre-processing For each user i we construct a 24-values vector 0 23 h (pi , . . . , pi ), where pi is the proportion of the user’s plays that took place between hour h and hour h + 1, After signing a non-disclosure aggrement (NDA) during the 100 days period. We clusters these vectors with a major music-on-demand company, we were with the k-means method. A usual question when given access to a dataset containing the raw streaming clustering n individuals into k clusters (with k fixed data of 10,000 anonymous users of the service. These a priori) is to determine an appropriate value of k.A anonymous users were randomly selected among all small k value will result is a very simple picture but the registered French users of the service. The stream- which may poorly capture the fluctuations in the data, ing data correspond to their entire listening history while k ∼ n will capture the variance almost perfectly during the 6-months period spanning from June 1st but will be useless. To determine a reasonnable range 2013 till December 1st 2013. The users were sampled of values for k we plotted on Supplementary Figure uniformly among all their French users (no bias re- 2 the averaged percentage of variance captured by k garding suscription plan, listening activity, sex, age, clusters resulting from the application of k-means to geographical location or years of use). Consequently the n listeners. From this curve we use the ’elbow the listening data are those of users with different method’ to determine the range of reasonnable values types of usage of the service. In particular, some of for k. It appears that 4 =< k <= 12 are candidates, them are paying suscribers, while some other aren’t and we looked at the average time profiles resulting (”free” suscribing users). The latter have to listen ad- from the clustering with each value of k. From k >= 5 vertisement between songs, cannot listen offline, the we observed less distinct average profiles, which is why audio quality is lower, and for some of them the total we kept k = 4 for the figure discussed in the main text. listening time is bounded. We note that these com- bined aspects can obviously influence the listening activity, probably decreasing the time spent using the Characterizing individual distributions of plays service each day. Supplementary Figure 3 gives the distribution of the listeners’ Gini coefficient resuming the heterogene- Our goal was to focus on individuals who use the ity of their distribution of plays among songs (see the music-on-demand streaming platform as one of their Methods section of the main text). Listeners who have main music sources (if not the main one). Conse- a small Gini value (typically < 0.3) are those whose quently we applied a number of filters to select rele- distribution is almost flat, indicating that they lis- vant users and eliminate those whose streaming data tened their songs approximately the same number of may not be representative of their listening habits in times. For such listeners the average value P/S (with general, whatever the source and device. The data P the total number of plays and S the total number include a few information on the users’ profiles (self- of unique songs listened) gives a clear picture of their declared age, sex and city of residence), but we do listening practice and of their repetition/discovery be- not know if the user is a paying suscriber or not, and havior. But for a large proportion of individuals the could not get this information from the company. It Gini coefficient is large (> 0.5), revealing that these prevented us to simply filter them. users have concentrated their plays on a limited number of songs. S vs. P. On Supplementary Figure 4A we plot for From the data we inspected the number of unique each user i her/his number Si of distinct songs listened users per day and realized that it displays large fluc- versus her/his total number of plays Pi (here limited tuations. Not all users were active during the entire 6- to the individuals with P < 5000 – which captures month period (some appearing only after a given date, 95% of listeners). Each single point represents an in- some disappearing). To circumvent this we focused on dividual, and we see points distributed all across the a 100 days period (from 15/08/2013 to 22/11/2013) triangle (by construction we have S <= P ), which during which the number of unique listeners per day indicates a wide variety of profiles in terms of repe- remained stable. We then selected users who dis- tition/exploration. Some listen to a relatively small played regularity in their use of the service during number of songs and listen to them a lot (small S and this 100 days period and used the service one every large P case), while to the opposite some other lis- two days in average. Hence the filter is not on the ten to many different songs and listen each of them total activity (listening time) of the users but on their a few number of times (the points near the dashed frequency of use. We ended with 4,615 anonymous line S = P ). Another way to capture the tendency users. of individuals to concentrate their plays on a limited 12 fraction of the songs listened is to calculate the rela- Brazil, Africa, Maghreb, Middle East, Aus- tive dispersion σi/µi of their distribution of plays per tralia/Pacific) which give limited information on song (Pi). The histogram of σi/µi on Supplementary the music genre itself; Figure 3B shows that there exists several types of listeners. Individuals with σ/µ 1 have a distribution • we filter out the basic genre tags which account of plays per song peaked around the mean, and the for less than 0.01% (nb: arbitrary parameter choice) of the songs listened – including ”Bolly- average number of plays per songp ¯i is hence an informative value. To the contrary for individuals with wood”, ”Finnish folk”, ”Medieval”, ”Chaabi”, ”Comptines/Chansons”, ”Mento/Calypso”, σ/µ 1, the average number of plays per song Pi/Si would not be representative of their listening practice. ”K-Pop”, ”Celtic music, ”Bachata”, ”Classi- cal turkish music”, ”Axé/Forró”, ”Regional méxicain”, ”Instrumental Hip Hop, ”Mari- Selection and aggregation of music genres achi”, ”Argentinian folklore”, ”German rap”, ”Banda”, ”Nederlandstalige volksmuziek”, ”Brasilian rock”, ”South-African House”,”Teen Each song of a music-on-demand service is tagged tha¨ı”,etc. –, in order to reduce the number of with one or several tags (in the following we name genres compared and focus on the most listened them basic genres tags and the histogram of the num- ones; after this step we have discarded ≈ 40% ber of tags per song is displayed on Supplementary of the basic genre tags. Figure 7). The weight of these basic genres – mea- sured through their total number of songs in the • we keep all the streams of songs which are streams – is very different from one genre to an- tagged with one basic genre tag only (≈ 3 × 105 other. Furthermore, the analysis of the network of songs); the basic genres tags that are used as basic genre tags reveal different types of tags, and single tags are the following: Hip Hop, Dance, some hierarchical relations between them (some en- Pop, R&B/Soul/Funk, Reggae, Electro, Rock, tirely include/contain others). We build the weighted Alternative, International pop, Jazz, Classical, and directed network Sij of genre tags. It is the 1- Variété,Country, Brasil, Music for kids, French mode projection of the bipartite network linking songs chanson, Movies/Video games, Tropical, Latin and genres tags. In this network the nodes represent rock. the basic genres, and Si→j = k means that there are k songs tagged with genre i which are also tagged with • for the remaining streams of songs tagged with genre j (the network is directed and in most cases two or more basic genres tags (≈ 2.5 × 105 Si→j 6= Sj→i). Some basic genre tags correspond to songs), we inspect the statistic of the pairs of very broad, higher-order categories (e.g. ’Pop’, ’Rock’ basic genres tags among songs. For each pair ’Alternative’, ’Dance’) and serve as coarse-grained of basic genres (g, g0), if it appears that g en- classifiers. The analysis of this network reveals that tirely contains g0 (i.e. all songs tagged as g0 it has a hierarchical structure and that some of these are also tagged as g), then we remove g from genres tags entirely “contain” smaller, more informa- the corresponding streams (i.e. streams which tive tags. For example all “Blues” songs are also were previously associated to these two basic tagged as being “Rock” songs, and all “Metal/Hard- genres will now be associated only with genre Rock” songs are also tagged as “Rock”. On the con- g0). For example, let’s say we wish to calcu- trary, there are some “Rock” songs that are tagged late aggregated statistics for “Rock”, “Blues” only as “Rock”. The purpose of the filtering we per- and “Metal” streams. Since all songs tagged formed and detail below was then to keep the most as “Blues” (resp. “Metal”) are also tagged as informative/precise tag(s) for each song, whenever it “Rock”, to come up with more relevant statis- is possible and relevant. tics for the three genres we consider that it To perform our genre analysis, we start with the is more significant to discard streams associ- same dataset D used in subsections 1 (Rhythms), 2 ated to “Blues” and “Metal” songs when com- (Difference and repetition) and 4 (Playing music at puting reference statistics for “Rock” streams a party) of the results section in the main text. This (and keep in the “Rock” category limited to dataset contains the entire streams history of the 4,615 the songs tagged solely as “Rock” ). We end users during 100 days. We first merge this dataset up in removing basic genre tags such as Pop, with the songs database provided by the music-on- Rock, Electro, Hip Hop, Jazz, Classical, etc. demand company, which contains the genre tags as- among the tags that qualify songs with 2 or more sociated to each song of the catalog. It results in a tags, because they are systematically associated dataset D0 giving us the complete streams associated with more informative tags (e.g. indie rock, to each of the basic genre tags. We filter this dataset Metal/hard-rock, Blues, Techno/House, rock’n of ≈ 2 ∗ 107 entries by applying the following rules: roll/rockabilly, Funk, chill out/trip-hop, instrumental jazz, instrumental hip-hop, opera, etc.). • we remove the purely “geographical” tags (World, France, Europe, North America, We end up with more than 7 × 106 streams. The Central America/Caribean, South America, statistics of the number of basic genre tags per song 13

#genres #songs weight in the remaining ﬁltered streams are given in Table I. 1 439582 9.002220e-01 More than 90% of the songs are tagged with 1 genre 2 38348 7.853304e-02 only, and almost all songs (98%) are tagged with 1 or 3 9384 1.921754e-02 2 genres, limiting the risks of confusion in the analysis of listening patterns associated to various genres. 4 970 1.986467e-03 5 20 4.095809e-05

TABLE SI. Number and proportion of songs having a given number k of genre tags, after ﬁltering and removing higher- order genre tags. 14

SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES

0.2 ) t ( U 23 O ⌠ ⌡

) t ( U 1 + t t 0.1 ⌠ ⌡

weekdays

weekends

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 t

Supplementary Figure 1. Hourly evolution of the proportion of active listeners, during an average weekday and an average weekend day.During weekdays the number of individuals listening to music increases over the day to reach a maximum around 7-8 p.m. We notice two small peaks, one in the morning aroung 8 a.m. and the other one at lunchtime around 1 p.m. Most of the plays occur during the afternoon and evening. During weekends the collective rhythm is diﬀerent with two peaks, one around 12 p.m. and the other in the early evening, around 7-8 p.m. (error bars are small indicating a high regularity of temporal listening habits 15

20 Percentage of variance explained of variance Percentage

0 10 20 30 40 50 Number of clusters

Supplementary Figure 2. Percentage of variance explained when clustering listeners in k groups according to their listening time proﬁle average over 100 days.

(a) (b)

0.12 0.15

0.08 0.10 Frequency Frequency 0.04 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.7 1.0 1.3 3.1 σ(P ) µ(P ) Gini(P i) i i

Supplementary Figure 3. (a) Histogram of the individuals’ Gini normalized coeﬃcient resuming their distribution of plays among the songs they listened (b) Histogram of the users’ relative dispersion of plays. For each user i, µi is the mean value of his/her distribution of plays per song, while σi is the standard deviation of this distribution. 16

(a) (b) (c)

5000 5000 3000

4000 4000

2000 3000 3000 A S A 2000 2000 1000

1000 1000

0 0 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 P P S

Supplementary Figure 4. On these scatterplots each dot represents a listener (a) Number of unique songs listened S vs. total number of plays P (b) Number of unique artists listened A vs. total number of plays P (c) A vs S. The data appears clouded, we see a lot of ﬂuctuations and no clear relation linking P , S and A that would allow to make predictions.

% of listeners 10

0 0 20 40 60 % of albums listened which are listened entirely

Supplementary Figure 5. Proportion of albums listened entirely (but not necessarily in just one time and sequential order). More than 50% of the users listened entirely less than 5% of all the albums in which they grabbed songs, underlining that album-oriented listening sessions are clearly not the standard practice on streaming platforms. 17

4 Average songs age Average 2

20 25 30 35 Users Age

Supplementary Figure 6. Do we stay true to the music of our generation? Average age of songs listened as a function of the listener’s age. While there are of course a lot of ﬂuctuations and diﬀerent listening behaviours inside a given ’demographic group’, we observe a tendency: as people get older, they tend to listen to older music as well.

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Proportion of songs

0.1

0.0

1 5 10 # basic genres tags

Supplementary Figure 7. Histogram of the number of basic genre tags per song, before ﬁltering. The songs considered for building the histogram are those which have been listened to during the 100 days period under scrutinity. 18

10 30

0 0 5 10 15 20 # among 15 popular genres listened at least once

10 Percentage of individuals Percentage

0 25 50 75 100 Percentage of the main popular music genres listened at least once in a 100 days period

Supplementary Figure 8. Listeners seem eclectic at first sight. Histogram of the proportion of the main genres listened at least once in a 100 days period ; (inset) Histogram of the number of genres listened at least once in a 100 days period among 15 classic popular broad music genres (Pop, Rock, Hip Hop, Dance, R&B/Soul/Funk, Reggae, Electro, Alternative, Country, Jazz, Classical music, Chanson, ’Variété’,Tropical). 19 A B

0.3 0.2

0.2

0.1

Proportion of individuals 0.1 Proportion of individuals

0.0 0.0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Normalized Gini coefficient of individuals' 1 2 3 4 5 C distribution of plays per genre Number of dominant genres among plays 1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25 Cumulative fraction of individuals fraction Cumulative 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 #plays in the 3 favorite genres #plays total

Supplementary Figure 9. The listeners’ inegal repartition of plays among the music genres they listen to. (a) Distribution of the Gini coefficient values of individuals that resume the inequality of their distribution of plays among the different main music genres (b) Histogram of the number of dominant genres D among individuals (see Methods in the main text for details about the calculation of the number of dominant terms in a distribution from its Gini coefficient) (c) CDF of the weight of the 3 favorite genres (determined from the number of plays) among listeners. 20

Rock

Reggae

Pop

Metal/HardRock

Jazz

Indie rock

Indie pop

Hip Hop Favorite genre Favorite

French rap

French pop

Electro

Dance

Classique

Jazz Pop Dance Electro Rock Hip HopIndie pop Rap misc Reggae AlternativeClassique French popFrench rap Indie rock Metal/HardRock R&B/Soul/Funk Techno/House Contemporary R&B Rock & Roll/Rockabilly Second favorite genre

Supplementary Figure 10. Conditional probabilities to observe pairs of favorite genres among listeners. The color intensity of each cell is indexed on the probability p(g2/g1) that a listener having g1 as favorite genre has g2 as second favorite genre. 21

weekday friday saturday sunday

0.08 Classical 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.08 Blues 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.06 Jazz 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.06 Rock

) 0.04 t

( 0.02

P 0.00 R&B/Soul

day 0.08

⌠ ⌡ 0.06

0.04

) 0.02 t

( 0.00 P

1 0.08 Metal + t 0.06 t

⌠ ⌡ 0.04 0.02 0.00

0.08 Electro 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

0.08 Hip Hop 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

0.08 Dance 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 Hour

Supplementary Figure 11. Relative proportion of plays as a function of the hour of the day and day of the week, for different music genres. Let alone micro variations – which might be due to the relatively small number of listeners of certain genres at certain hours (nb: the total number of listeners under study is 4615) and to statistical fluctuations – we see no significative differences between the average listening time profiles of the genres. 22

Pop Hip Hop Dance Pop Hip Hop Dance 0 AB10 4 −2 10 10 3 10−4 10 10−6 102 −8 10 101 Rock Alternative Electro Rock Alternative Electro 0 10 4 −2 10 10 3 10−4 10 10−6 102 10−8 #plays 1

Frequency 10 R&B/Soul/Funk Jazz Classical R&B/Soul/Funk Jazz Classical 0 10 4 −2 10 10 3 10−4 10 2 10−6 10 −8 10 101 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 1010 10 10 1 1010 10 10 1 1010 10 10 1 10 102 103 1 10 102 103 1 10 102 103 #plays rank

Supplementary Figure 12. The hierarchy of songs in various genres. (a) Histogram of the number of plays per song for the same set of genres (b) Rank-size plot for the 1000 most popular songs in the streams of nine classic music genres. 23

Classical Jazz 0.7

Rock Electro Metal 0.6 Average age Indie rock of fans 40

Hip Hop Pop in other genres Dance 0.5 35 Exploration rate S/P rate Exploration

0.4 25

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Exploration rate S/P in the favorite genre

Supplementary Figure 13. Exploration statistics for groups of fans of various music genres, along with the average age of the group members (ﬁll colour) and its importance among the population of listeners (circle size).